Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas ZaZa, we should sack the lot of them and get them to apply for their jobs using criteria used in most National businesses recruitment.. I wonder who would even bother applying and how many would be ultimately successful.
Remember nearly 1000 employees earning an average of 50K!! Who'd vote for that change in policy!!!! NONE of them!!

RefChat Addict

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas ZaZa, we should sack the lot of them and get them to apply for their jobs using criteria used in most National businesses recruitment.. I wonder who would even bother applying and how many would be ultimately successful.
Remember nearly 1000 employees earning an average of 50K!! Who'd vote for that change in policy!!!! NONE of them!!

This is true, the boys at the top will always look after themselves, similar to the pension age for the Army, is used to be (up until a couple of years ago) that after 22 years you would qualify for your full pension + lump sum, which if you were a warrant officer etc could be a nice little package to retire on at 38(ish).

They changed it to 65, to save money, and considering the only people who normally continue to serve until that age are senior officers its no surprise they felt it was a good move.

Obviously with the reduction in things like pensions etc the Army is struggling to retain current soldiers and recruit enough new ones.

I think that if the FA is to be overhauled, it shouldn't be done by the FA. An external organisation, with no connections to anyone involved in the FA, should come in to over see it. Of course that would bring with it additional costs.

But no one will trust an FA that has been re-organised by the same people that have been roundly criticised several times over the last year or two.

RefChat Addict

This is true, the boys at the top will always look after themselves, similar to the pension age for the Army, is used to be (up until a couple of years ago) that after 22 years you would qualify for your full pension + lump sum, which if you were a warrant officer etc could be a nice little package to retire on at 38(ish).

They changed it to 65, to save money, and considering the only people who normally continue to serve until that age are senior officers its no surprise they felt it was a good move.

Obviously with the reduction in things like pensions etc the Army is struggling to retain current soldiers and recruit enough new ones.

I think that if the FA is to be overhauled, it shouldn't be done by the FA. An external organisation, with no connections to anyone involved in the FA, should come in to over see it. Of course that would bring with it additional costs.

But no one will trust an FA that has been re-organised by the same people that have been roundly criticised several times over the last year or two.

Christ, bit harsh on the heads of the armed forces to be compared to the shower at the FA!!!
That rule shafted officers alike. Unless you're planning on making it to 4 stars you're not going to be in the Armed Forces in your 60s.
I seriously doubt the generals/admirals/ACMs colluded to screw over the other 99.9999% the forces.
This decison would have been made by a senior civil servant and the seniors would have fought them all the way
In fairness, it was about as ridiculously generous a pension package as you could come up with and was never gonna last. Fair play to the lads that got out just before it changed
My government job involves manual labour in reasonably harsh conditions and my retirement age is 68!!!